Hogan - Tiger 1953-2003

[HDPM]

This year could potentially be very special. In 1953 Hogan had probably the best year of golf ever. Better than Nelson's 19 against slightly weak wartime competition I think. Better than Jones's pro/amateur grand slam, which was very impressive. Hogan only could play 7 tournaments and only three majors. He won 6 and all three majors. He could not walk enough to play the PGA which was real-man match play in those days. 36 hole matches every day. Rather than sue to take a cart like some today, Hogan didn't play in an event he was not physically capable of playing in. He took hours getting ready and wrapping his legs just to play one round. So instead of the PGA he went over and won the British. 50 years later Tiger is threatening to have as good a year. His winning percentage probably can't match Hogan's because he will play more events against tough competition. But Tiger does have a chance to win the Grand Slam, something thought impossible in the modern era. Obviously it's a little premature to talk about, but what Tiger is doing is amazing. I wonder if Tiger is thinking about Hogan's '53? I bet he is.

[Clarkmeister]

I'll be honest, and I'm sure most disagree, but I think the 'Tiger Slam' is just as good as doing it in a calendar year. I mean, really, what's the difference? Dude won four freaking majors in a row.

[JTG51]

This is a little off of your topic HDPM, but you reminded me of something I thought of recently.

I've heard people say in the past that what Tiger has done in recent years is more impressive than what past greats like Hogan, Nicklaus, Palmer, etc did because Tiger has so much more competition. The argument goes something like, the average players these days is so much better than just 20 or 30 years ago, and there are so many more players capable of winning any given week now.

While I don't disagree that there are more good players today than when Nicklaus was in his prime, I think more and more that is a dumb argument. The reality is when Nicklaus played something close to his best golf, Palmer (in Jack's early years), Watson, Trevino, Floyd and a number of others could challenge him. When Tiger plays anything close to his best game he wins going away.

Just to be clear, I’m not trying to say past greats were better than Tiger is. I become more convinced of the opposite every week. What I’m trying to say is, Tiger winning despite so much great competition isn’t what makes him great. What makes him great is the fact that he has no competition.

By the way, I agree with you. I’m sure Tiger has 1953 in mind. He seems to always be aware of his place in history.

[B-Man]

Wade Boggs hit over .400 during a 162-game stretch from approximately June 1, 1985 - June 1, 1986. Are you saying that is just as good as hitting .400 for a season?

(similarly, I believe Matt Williams hit 63 home runs during a 162-game stretch that overlapped two seasons. He was not credited with breaking Maris' record (which still stood at the time)).

[HDPM]

I don't agree it's the same, but I do think it is tremendous. I think winning the 4 in a row was an amazing feat. Perhaps the most amazing thing done in professional golf. But there is something different about doing it in one calendar year. You must win four specified tournaments, not just start a streak at one of the tournaments. A calendar slam is harder to win and is has more mystique because it is done within the confines of a defined season that progresses in it's own way. I agree with Tiger when he said, "well, when I look at my coffee table I have all 4 trophies." I just also think doing it in one season would be the greatest thing ever in golf and would outclass his Tiger Slam. I hope he pulls it off, this year or in the future.

[HDPM]

That's an interesting way to put it, that what makes him great is that he has no competition. He is taking away opportunities for other players to win majors with his play. He's made a lot of guys look like bums and owns them psychologically. I think there is some merit to the point that Nicklaus played against some guys who competed better. I can't knock Watson, Trevino, Casper, Palmer, and others. Tiger would own those guys too, however. I would like to see a player come along with all the skills to challenge Tiger some. Right now Tiger's competition basically rotates. He is beating the excellent player who is having a good week, but the players are taking turns stepping up. People thought Sergio might step up, but he has no mental control and can't putt right now. Duval went ito the toilet. Phold won't ever seriously challenge. Els is a great player in any era. Singh a very good second tier player (akin to Johnny Miller or Tom Weiskopf) in any era. Collectively the competion is tougher, but nobody stands out. Like you, I don't think it takes anything away from tiger tho.

[B-Man]

Agreed. It is perhaps the most impressive streak of winning golf ever put together. It just isn't the "Grand Slam."

[JTG51]

I agree with most of what you said, do you really think Tiger would own Watson if he was at the peak of his game though? I'm not really old enough to have seen him play his best golf, but the guy still plays so well tee to green. I imagine in his prime, when he was really putting well he could at least challenge Tiger. Certainly more than any of today's players can.

[HDPM]

Yeah, at his best Watson would challenge Tiger some. Remember though that Watson, even as great as he was, had a brief window where his game was all together. When he putted great, his tee to green game had moments of terror. Like missing greens by 30 yards from 150. Like Tiger in his rookie year. When Watson got to be his best tee to green, his putting slipped away. Tiger is the first player to be the total player. Long. Hits greens. Putts great, not good. Great short game. Hogan had only a brief period where his long game and putting were great. Hogan's putting really suffered after his accident. Nicklaus was long and accurate, a great competitor, a great course manager, and a great putter from 10' in, but his short game was nowhere close to Tiger's. Tiger is maybe the first to hit it great and putt it great at the same time. He is a better competitor than even Nicklaus. So I think he beats all of those guys in their primes. Hard to say comparing eras though. And I don't want to take away from the old guys. They were great. Tiger is greater. I don't think Watson, Trevino or Nicklaus would phold up as bad as Phil tho. We might see more epic battles like Turnberry.

[Gitz]

Woods then flew a 3-wood 256 yards to within 12 feet of the hole at the par-5 fourth. He made the eagle putt to get to 17-under; nine strokes clear of anyone else.

"That 3-wood on the fourth hole was a beautiful shot That kind of iced the cake right away," said Faxon, who played alongside Woods.

"I let him borrow some Imodium (diarrhea medicine) on the 12th hole. It's no fun; you're in the public eye and all you want to do is go lie down."

Just using Faxon as an example of the difference between Tiger and the field says it all. Faxon said during the week that he wished he could play with Tiger more this year in the final round mostly because he learned so much from him the last time they played together this year. The announcer said that would mean you'd probably be near the top. He said that too, but his concentration and the way he handles his surroundings during the final round is like nobody else he has ever seen. It's as if he's the only one playing the course along with his caddie.

Gitz